ARAB PALESTINIA

R E S I S T A N C EMONTHLY MAGAZINE

VOLUME IV-No.4 A P R I L 1972

PALESTINE LIBERATION ARMY- PEOPLE S LIBERATION FORCES

... * ii ;?****/ 4v.*.^f|/.'

Arab PalestinianE S I S T A N C E

VOL IV - No. 4 APRIL 1972

CONTENTS3

4

From the RecordEditorialPolitical Scene: Psychological Warfare, To Maintainthe Israeli Status quo?

By: M. T. Bujairami 6Nixon's Congress Report and the EisenhowerDoctrine By: Yousef Khatib 15U. S. Military Aid to Israel

By: Asaad Abdurahman 21Israel today: War or Peace? 27Palestine . . Wounded pleading (Poem)

By: Isa A. All 36TARIQ (short story) By: A. Shneiwar 40Tax - exemption Scandal 45I am ashamed of my country . . By: Norman Dacey 52Palestine Question in World Press(Dissent on Israel - The Washington Post, Feb. 17,1972) (Israel whips up Tension - New Times,March, 1972) 63Book Reviews (The Unholy land) Reviewed

By: Dr. George Haggar 70Resistance Operations 77P. L. O. Political Program 84Documents: (Report of the UN Special committee-Findings and recommendations) 89

.•

._

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e

The E d i t o r ,R e s i s t a n c e ,

P. 0 . B . 3 5 7 7D a m a s c u s , S y r i a

P r i c e p e r c o p y

S y r i a n p i a s t e r s l O O

$E d i t o r : M. KHURI

I.

FROM THE RECORD

«The Zionists can muster not merely the threatof the Jewish vote, and the no less important Jewishfinancial and organization skills, but also the black-mail of attacking anyone who opposes the politicalaims of Israel, as an anti-Semite.))

Davis Reisman inThe Jewish NewsletterJanuary 9th, 1961

•

:'

i.

•

DITORIAL

\e Arabs have always maintained that the

expansionist program of Israel has the full supportand backing of the United States and that all state-ments to the contrary, and all talk of an American•even-handed' policy in the Middle East or ofAmerican-Israeli differences, is mere pretence anddeceit.

That Israel wants to keep all the Arab terri-tories she invaded in the June-1967 Zionist-imperia-list aggression against the Arab nation is now nolonger in doubt. Israeli leaders have made truculentstatements which, in their totality, amount to adeclaration of the intention.

They talk of negotiations with no prior con-ditions and of a burning desire for peace. But ArabJerusalem and the Golan Heights are not negotiable.Sharm El-Sheikh and Sinai will not be given backto Egypt and no Egyptian soldier will be permittedto cross the Suez Canal. The Gaza Strip will not begiven either an Arab or a UN rule. As for the WestBank, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan has recently

said in a CBS TV «Face the Nation» interview: «Tome the West Bank is part of the Jewish homeland.There is no difference between Tel-Aviv, Hebronand Jericho.»

The Americans know this Israeli attitude per-fectly well. They know that Israel wants to retainthe occupied Arab territories and to maintain inde-finitely the present «no war, no peaces situation.Writing in Newsweek last December columnistStewart Alsop said: «What the Israeli position reallymeans is that the Israeli Government has made acrucial decision: Come the four corners of the worldagainst us, the Israelis will not budge an inch fromthe territory Israel conquered in 1967-and spinachto Mr. Nixon, Mr. Rogers, the U.N., world opinionand all the rest.»

The United States has now accepted the defiantIsraeli stand. This is evident from the Americanmilitary and economic aid which continues to bepoured into Israel and from statements by Israelileaders on American policy. Delivery of AmericanPhantoms to Israel has been resumed, and the Uni-ted States has agreed to provide Israel with factoriesto produce Anierican^designed weapons. Golda Meirhas recently declared that the US has not exercisedany form of pressure on Tel Aviv; and AmbassadorRabin has expressed satisfaction at the «deeperunderstanding)) by the American Government ofIsrael's policies and attitude.

<>;S!<^ i;d! '-:. . • • • . • : • !'•^.y< •>••••'• - : ' • • . , . .'.•-•••

M. T. Bujairami

'' • -

'

'

PSYCHOLOGICALWARFARE

••'Vr .'iT o;- : r « "R br-s

TO MAINTAIN THE ISRAELI STATUS QUO.

The present stage of the Middle East crisis ischaracterized by the escalation of psychological warfareagainst the Arabs to an unprecedented degree in order to«soften up» the solidity of Arab persistence in the pro-tracted struggle to repel the expansionist Zionist invasion.

A vicious, well-organized propaganda campaignhas been underway to undermine the self-confidenceof the Arabs and to intimidate the progressive forces

6

of the Arab liberation movement. These psycholo-gical pressures are part and parcel of a comprehen-sive strategic plot aimed at liquidating the justcause of the Arab Nation at any price and as soonas possible.

The American fingers behind the scheme areall too obvious to be hidden under any disguise. Forthe past few months, Isaac Rabin, the Israeli am-bassador to the U.S., has been shuttling to and frobetween Washington and Tel-Aviv, carrying instruc-tions on how to implement the new plot, step bystep. It seems that scientific brains, both human andelectronic have been at work in several Americanand Israeli universities to draw up the details of thenew plot, and to synchronize the movements ofthose who are currently participating in carryingit out.

Generally speaking, America's «Vietnamization»of the war in South East Asia is now paralleled bya similar attempt to «Arabicize» the conflict in SouthWest Asia. Thus America's Henry Kissinger, in closecooperation with the C.I.A. are unleashing their«computer» fantasies on this part of the world inanother bid to re-introduce the old imperialistmotto: Divide and Rule!

Kissinger is a fanatic Zionist whose loyaltybelongs first and foremost to Israel, not to America.Thus his most urgent goal, it seems, is to try to get

rid of the Palestinians, who still insist on existingdespite all the bloodbaths that have been arrangedin cold blood for them.

Since physical annihilation of these Palestinianshas proved impossible, both America and Israel havedictated a new plan to their lackey, the King ofJordan. The plan was to «grant» these Palestiniansa kind of «entity» in the West Bank of Jordan, witha sort of {(representation)) in order to undermine theFedayeen's claim to represent the will of the Pales-tinian people.

In this play, the roles have been carefullydistributed. First, the King proclaims his project ofthe ((United Arab Kingdoms which includes theregion of Palestine in the West Bank, thus revivingthe «name» of Palestine, which he himself has neverrecognized eversince he came to the throne. In orderto avoid suspicion by the Arab masses, the Kingswears that he has never received any orders fromWahsington or Tel-Aviv concerning this new project,which dawned on him out of the blue at this par-ticular time.

Next, Israel tries to deny any relation withthis project whatsoever, lest the Arabs shouldimmediately discredit it; but, at the same time,Israel would facilitate the implementation of theproject through holding the so-called «municipalelections)) in the occupied West Bank, under strictterrorist conditions, forcing the nominees who with-

8

drew to confirm their candidacy, sealing off the cityof Nablus a»d facing the electors with threats ofcollective punishment. In short, a new set of«puppets» are imposed on the people as their so-called ((representatives)) under the protection ofIsraeli bayonets. Yet Israel has the face to bragabout its being the «oasis of democracy)) in theMiddle East.

The fate of the Palestinians has thus becomethe subject of bargaining under the military rule ofIsrael and the Hashimite crown. Things are beingdecided for the Palestinians behind their backs inthe closed rooms of secret dealings in Amman, Tel-

Aviv and Washington. Uncle Sam is playing the roleof the «go-between» to synchronize these manipula-tions.

After some maneuvers by Israel, announcingits ((rejection of the plan,» the Israeli attitude beganto «soften» gradually through the statements madeby Ygal Allon, who is trying to revive his «plan»for the future of the occupied territories. Personalcontacts are kept in a very intimate atmospherebetween the Israelis and the Jordanian leaders onthe one hand, and American officialdom on theother.

King Hussein flew to Washington (under thestrictest security measures Jordan has ever witnessedthroughout its history) to get the support and bles-sings of his bosses in Washington. Other leadingIsraeli officials also made the same «pilgrimage» forsimilar purposes. The King was able to get promisesof getting Phantom jets from America only after heaccepted all the American conditions and declaredhis intention not to go to war with Israel anymore,and to seek to conclude a permanent «peace» agree-ment with Tel-Aviv. These terms do not provide forany Israeli concessions, or withdrawal, or dismantlingof the newly-constructed Israeli colonies in variousparts of the occupied West Bank of Jordan.

It is well known that the Phantom fighterbomber jet is a sophisticated, long-range offensivekind of plane. Even the Western allies of America

.

10

in NATO do not possess Phantoms. If these Phan-toms are not to be used by the King against Israelto regain the occupied West Bank of Jordan, whatcan be the purpose of delivering them to him?

Under the prevailing highly suspicious circum-stances, one is forced to believe that these planesare going to be used against some Arab country,probably Syria. Why? To suppress the remainingmilitant Palestinians who insist on proceeding withtheir armed struggle, and to keep the Syrians occu-pied and thereby prevent them from co-ordinatingtheir military activities with the Egyptian armedforces against Israel. Thus, the Israelis will neverbe forced to fight on two fronts; and the Egyptianswill find themselves alone — totally alone — in thebattle when the decisive time comes.

That Israel is planning another large-scaleaggression is evident from the mere fact that thevalue of the American arms that have been shippedto Israel, during the last three years only, amountsto the huge sum of $ 2000 million. Furthermore,Israel's large programs for populating the occupiedterritories with imported immigrants are completelyand exclusively financed by American sources, bothprivate and governmental. Without this colossalsupport, Israel would never be able to maintain itshold on the occupied Arab territories, let aloneprepare for another large-scale attack against Egyptor Syria.

Israel's arrogant greed seems to be uncontrol-

11

lable and insatiable. Israel is already searching formore allies, more sources of weapons and economicaid; hence the deal with Britain to get a number ofsubmarines; hence the pressure on West Germanyand Belgium; hence the renewed attacks on the just,neutral French attitude which has been maintainedsince the days of the great French leader, the lateGeneral de Gaulle.

However, the French opposition is being wooedby Israel. Frangois Mitterand was the guest ofAllon, the Israeli Deputy Premier, who «convinced»Mitterand to adopt the Israeli attitude towards theWest Bank of Jordan.

12

Recent Israeli moves, in full co-ordination withthe NATO strategy, have included attempts to openmore fronts against the Arabs in order to producefurther fragmentation of their stand. One of thesefronts however, has been closed, to the consternationof the Israelis. This front is in the Southern part ofthe Sudan, where an agreement has been reached toheal the bleeding wound in that Arab country. Thanksto the new, positive attitude taken by President Aminof Uganda, the Israelis will no longer be able toinfiltrate into Southern Sudan via Ugandan territory.

It has been recently discovered that all theIsraelis posted in Uganda were acting as secretagents both for Israel and for America, organizingtheir espionage activities in full collaboration withthe C.I.A. The Israeli role in East Africa, however,is still active; and especially in Ethiopia, whereboth Israeli and American military personnel arein full control of the Ethiopian security andintelligence forces. Moreover, there are several mili-tary bases in East Ethiopia and the Red Sea operatedfully or partially, by the Israelis. One of these basesis located on the strategically important mountainknown as Jebel Hamid.

Meanwhile, Israel still maintains the sameattitude of indifference to world public opinion, byarrogantly rejecting international efforts aimed atany kind of a peaceful settlement in the MiddleEast, which does not totally accept Israeli conditionsand tantamounts to complete Arab surrender.

13

In the occupied Arab territories, lands are stillbeing confiscated, people are still being arrested,detained, tortured and deported across the cease-firelines. New Israeli colonies, fortified bastions, planta-tion projects, summer resorts, housing units and allkinds of installations continue to be constructed.

Israel does not only behave as if she werestaying in these areas forever, but it also makes nosecret of her future plans to annex them altogetherin an irrevocable way! Meanwhile, the Arab ownersof these areas, who have been reduced to the statusof displaced refugees have had to scatter all over theMiddle East and nobody seems concerned with theirdestiny. As for Israel, it is not ready even to con-template the possibility of repatriating them, be-cause this might limit the room available for thenew Jewish immigrants.

The Palestinians, however, are continuing theirheroic struggle in an unequal fight against greatodds. They are striking deep into the heart of Israelproper, in Haifa and Tel-Aviv. Israel and herWestern allies are maintaining a policy of completesilence regarding these great activities that extendnearly to every inch of the occupied lands. Thesilence of the Israeli and American mass-media doesnot mean that the Palestinians have ceased to existor to strike. Their blows against the occupiers oftheir homeland express the determination of thewhole Arab Nation not to succumb to the Israelistatus-quo. •

14

by: Yousef Khatib

NIXON'S CONGRESS REPORTAND THEEISENHOWER DOCTRINE

'

Dr. Jarring has reactivated his mission. He has paidvisits to Cairo, Amman and Israel, and has establishedheadquarters in Cyprus for further visits of mediation.

His mission, however, is gradually losing allmarks of possible fruitfulness or seriousness of pur-pose. Israel has obstructed the path to peace in theMiddle East through its arrogant stand on the ques-tion of withdrawal from the occupied Arab terri-tories. The Tel-Aviv authorities have repeatedlydeclared they would not withdraw to the pre-June1967 boundaries.

Meanwhile, the United States has joined theTel-Aviv authorities in a carefully-planned politicalttianeuvre, intended to shift the attention of theworld from the basic question of Zionist withdrawal

15

from the occupied Arab territories to two otheraspects of the Middle East crisis.

In connection with attempts at finding a poli-tical settlement for the Middle East crisis, theU.S.-Israeli plan aims at shifting stress from theUnited Nations efforts exerted through the Jarringmission to find a comprehensive solution to the ArabIsraeli conflict, to be based on Security CouncilResolution 242, of November 1967 which calls uponIsrael to withdraw from the occupied Arab terri-tories, to U.S. mediation which concentrates ontrying to reach an interim solution, relating to thereopening of the Suez Canal.

The other aspect of the U.S.-Israeli plan aimsat shifting world interest from the basic issue of thecontinuing Zionist aggression against the Arabnation, manifested in the Zionist occupation of Arabland and in repeated Israeli incursions into Arabterritories as happened in the recent attacks againstLebanon, to the global issue of military rivalrybetween the United States and the Soviet Union.

Thus in President Nixon's recent ForeignPolicy Report, sent to Congress on February 9, muchis made of claimed military advantages, allegedlymade by the Soviet Union. The report in fact givespriority of place and emphasis to allegations thatthe .Soviet Union has taken advantage of Egypt'sdependence on Soviet military supply to gain theuse of naval and air facilities in Egypt and that this

16

.

advantage has serious implications on the balance ofpower in the Middle East, in the Eastern Mediter-ranean, and globally.

The U.S.-Israeli plan of making the majoraspect of the Middle East conflict, not Israeli aggres-sion which is maintained with the full military andfinancial backing of the United States but American-Soviet global rivalry, agrees with the general outlineof U.S. Middle East policy as formulated in theso-called Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957.

It may be recalled in this connection that onMarch 9, 1957, the U,S. Congress approved theEisenhower Doctrine which comprised the followingfour principles:

1. The President was authorized to co-operatewith, and assist nations of the area in the develop-ment of economic strength dedicated to the main-tenance of national independence.

2. The President was authorized further toundertake military assistance programs with anynation or group of nations in the area, desiring suchassistance.

3. The United States regards as vital to thenational interest and world peace the preservation ofthe independence and integrity of the nations of theMiddle East.

4. To this end, if the President determines thenecessity thereof, the United States is prepared touse armed forces to assist any such nation or groupof such nations requesting assistance against armed

18

aggression from any country controlled by Interna-tional Communism.

The four principles of the -Eisenhower Doctrine'clearly reveal that the Doctrine was formulatedfrom a one-sided view-point, that of Zionism andimperialism.

In the first place, the Americans seem to believethat they have been assigned the divine mission ofleading and safeguarding the so-called -free world',forgetting that a first requisite of leadership is adeep, thorough and impartial comprehension ofworld problems. To them and to their government•the free world' apparently signifies the advancedcapitalist countries as opposed to developing count-ries, which are conceived of as a huge economicreserve earmarked to serve the interests of theso-called 'free world'.

Next, the Eisenhower Doctrine speaks of the((independence and integrity of nations of the MiddleEast,» placing in one scale of the balance two millionIsraelis and in the other, the one-hundred millionArabs inhabiting the whole of the Arab world.

The Eisenhower Doctrine, moreover, makes noreference to the Palestinian people who, till 1948,had lived in their motherland for over 4000 years;for in that year, the name 'Palestine' was replacedby 'Israel' and its people were reduced to the statusof refugees.

Finally, in principle 4 of the «EisenhowerDoctrine,» —• and this is the point most relevant to

19

the main theme of our talk today —, it is stated thatthe United States is prepared to use its armedforces to assist any Middle East nation, or group ofnations, requesting assistance against armed aggres-sion from any country controlled by InternationalCommunism.

Obviously, the «state» the Eisenhower Doctrineenvisaged as a possible target of aggression is«Israel» and the states described as controlled bycommunism, and likely to launch aggression, arethe Arab States.

All this is very well. But a question may beasked here: What if things turned out the other wayround, and «Israel» launched an aggression againstthe Arab States as happened on June 5th, 1967?The United States, of course, would then help theaggressor, who is its ally in the Zionist-imperialistplots against the Arab nation.

Rather than dealing with the consequences andramifications of the Palestine problem and theMiddle East conflict, as the Eisenhower Doctrineand Nixon's recent message to Congress do, theWorld should deal with its very essence, that ofIsraeli aggression against the Arab nation and theliberation cause of the Palestinian people. Ignoringthis basic aspect of the problem cannot be in theinterest of either Middle East stability or worldpeace. •

20

Asaad Abdurrahman r: "* ' " • r»qx i__— •".": ru \ ; . - ; > \ i ; : .-i • ; ; • :::K;-;- i; - < j : r :

't.'i'jqoo:") ; jivjoS bogri:f;; gifir.'jy.j

. MILITARY AID TO

A US politician has recently claimed that the SovietUnion is planning to supply Egypt with a factory to makeMig planes; and as usual with pro-Israel American politi-cians, he relied on the alleged but unsubstantiated claim tocall on the United States government to give more militaryaid to Israel.

'

'

21

Experience has taught the Arabs that when-ever a clamour is raised in the United States con-cerning alleged Soviet cooperation with one or moreof the Arab countries, there would be some newimportant American military aid which has beengiven, or about to be given, to Israel and which theAmericans are trying to hide from the world.

To serve their interests in the Arab world, andto protect US oil-exploitation plants in the Arabcountries, the Americans like to pretend that theiraid to Israel is mainly economic and that this aid ismotivated, for the most part, by the desire to con-tribute to Israeli social development and to thesettlement of Jewish refugees in Zionist-occupiedPalestine.

This was the deceptive attitude taken by theUS government in 1948, when Israel was established,and in the 1950's. Thus the United States govern-ment recognized Israel eleven minutes after itsofficial proclamation and thereby expressed itsattitude of having set itself up as the protector whowill ensure the safety and existence of Israel.

To deceive the Arab countries, however, the USgovernment pretended that although they wereinterested in helping Israel economically, they werenot ready to give military aid to the Zionist stateand maintained a neutral attitude with regard to themilitary aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

A few days after the establishment of Israel in1948 official negotiations between the United Statesand Israel began, resulting in an offer of 100 million

22

dollars of American aid to the Provisional Govern-ment of Israel for development projects, mostly ofan industrial nature. Truman announced his appro-val of the loan in a letter dated November 29, 1948which he sent to Chaim Weizmann, President of theWorld Zionist movement.

Two years later, in 1950, Israel received anAmerican loan of 35 million dollars. In fact duringthe first five years of its existence, Israel receivedgifts and investments from overseas sources, total-ling over a billion dollars which came, for the mostpart, from the United States.

And yet the United States government con-tinued to make declarations of neutrality with

•'

23

regard to the military aspect of the Arab-Israeliconflict. Such declarations, however, were obviouslyuntrue because while pretending to refrain fromgiving direct military aid to Israel, the United StatesGovernment was using its leading position in theWestern camp to pressure other countries to givedirect aid to Israel. The case of the Federal Republicof Germany is the best example of the operation ofthe US policy of giving huge, but indirect, militaryaid to Israel through the services of a third party.

On March 2, 1956, Moshe Sharett, Israeli Minis-ter of Foreign Affairs at the time, asked for a de-finitive answer regarding his request for militaryaid from the US. The American answer was givenon April 3, by J.F. Dulles, American Secretary ofState at the time, who stated that the US Govern-ment maintained a policy of neutrality and nonin-volvement in the «arms race» between Israel and theArab states. Dulles added that such an attitude onthe part of the US Government did not imply thatthe Israeli request had been rejected, or that the UShad any «objection to the sale of arms to Israel byother Western countries.)) Geoffrey Barraclough andRachel Wall commented on this answer in their book«Survey of International Affairs in 1956», in thefollowing words: «This statement appears to havedetermined the Western line, and as a consequencedeliveries of Mystere fighters ordered for use byNATO (from France) were postponed in favor ofIsrael.))

This took place in 1956. In 1965, when the

24

crisis between the Arab states and the FederalRepublic of Germany was at its highest pitch re-garding the secret supply of West German arms toIsrael, the State Department spokesman, Mr. RobertMcCloskey, disclosed on February 17, 1965, that theUS had been consulted in advance about the WestGerman arms supplied to Israel, and had approvedthe transfer of American-built M-48 tanks from theFederal Republic of Germany to Israel.

In 1962, the United States government shiftedto a policy of openly supplying Israel with directmilitary aid. On September 26 of that year, it wasannounced in Washington that the United States hadagreed to sell short-range Hawk missiles to Israel.The years 1962-1966 witnessed the delivery of largeamounts of direct U.S. military aid to Israel.

On May 18, 1966, US Defense Minister Mc-Namara delivered a speech in Montreal, a few daysbefore announcing the Skyhawk deal with Israel,m which he declared that it was the policy of the

25

United States to encourage and achieve a moreeffective military partnership with those nations,including Israel which could share in what he calledinternational peace-keeping responsibilities.

In the June 1967 Zionist-imperialist aggressionagainst the Arab nation, the United States was analmost avowed partner in the aggression and thechief supplier of the offensive military weapons usedby Israel in carrying it out.

Since then the United States has been pouringmilitary aid into Israel, notwithstanding Israel'sdefiant attitude of world public opinion in connec-tion with its continued occupation of the invadedArab territories. The last moves in this directionwere two agreements concluded between the UnitedStates and Israel early this year, one providing forgiving Israel more American-built Phantom planesand the other, a secret agreement, according to theterms of which Israel will be provided with wholefactories to produce American-designed arms, inclu-ding highly sophisticated weapons, in Israel.

It was, probably, to give some form of justifi-cation to these agreements which made an Americanpolitician recently allege that the Soviet Union hasagreed with Egypt to set up a factory in West Egyptto build Soviet-designed Mig planes.

The story of American military aid to Israeldoes not only belie all American pretence to aneven-handed policy in the Middle East, but it alsoproves that President Nixon is determined to helpIsrael keep the fruits of its continued aggressionagainst the Arab nation. 9

26

Israel Today :

WAR OR PEACE ?

Offered here are excerpts from «Israel Today: War orPeaces, a booklet by American publicist Hyman Lumer,published by New Outlook Publishers, New York, andanalysing various aspects of Tel Aviv's policies.

•

•'

• TOWARDS ECONOMIC BANKRUPTCY

Today policies of aggression and expansion areextremely costly, and the cost is rising ever morerapidly. For Israel the pursuit of this course isleading to economic bankruptcy.

The present military budget (nearly $ 1.5 billionf°r the' fiscal year 1970—71) is five times that of966. And since the cease-fire it has been increased

by an added $ 335 million.

27

In the case of Israel such astronomical militaryoutlays mean enormous spending for arms abroad,which must be paid in foreign currencies. (The costof the Phantom jets bought last year was $ 300million.) David Krivine wrote in the JerusalemPost (September 18, 1970): «Israel produces 20 billionIsraeli pounds of goods and services, military andcivilian, a year, and consumes 25 billion. The outsideworld finances the missing 5 million, partly by gifts,largely by loans.» (Note: 3,5 Israeli pounds equalone dollar.)

During the past few years the gap between

28

ports and exports has been rapidly increasing,ncj jn the past fiscal year the balance of payments

deficit reached the unprecedented sum of $ 1.1billion.

The total foreign debt is now about half thegross national product. Nearly 10 percent of thebudget goes for interest payments alone.

How is this huge gap to be filled in the comingyears? «The economists' advice to the Prime Minis-ter,» says Krivine, «can only be: beg, borrow orsteal. ... Appeal to Western politicians.))

It is the shaky path which Israel's rulers havetaken. Increasingly they have relied on loans, creditsand financial aid, primarily from the United States.And increasingly they have placed Israel at theservice of U.S. imperialism in return.

In their desperate search for foreign currenciesthey have gone to fantastic lengths to encourageforeign investment in Israel. For this purpose three((millionaires' conferences)) have been held in Israel:in August 1967, April 1968 and June 1969. The foreigncapitalists attending these agreed to establish a $ 100million investment corporation, seeking profitableinvestments in Israel.

To secure such investments the Israeli govern-ment offered large grants-in-aid, long-term loans, bigtax concessions, guarantees of high profits and otherinducements. In addition, it undertook to «stimulaterising productivity and lower unit costs» — that is,

29

to step up the exploitation of Israeli workers.The foreign capitalists also demanded that the

Israeli government cease competing with privatefirms and dispose of its holding in industrial andcommercial enterprises.

This the government has done, to the pointwhere it has little left to sell.

The fact is, however, that despite all the in-ducements, foreign capital today has little interestin investing in new enterprises in Israel. As aHistadrut official whom I met put it, the conferencesproduced «much talk and little investment.)) Thepledged $ 100 million proved to be only$ 20 million. And the interest in investing was con-fined to buying into the profitable government-ownedenterprises.

Foreign monopolists have made considerable

30

inroads into such enterprises as the ZIM steamshipline, the Israel Oil Refineries, the Timna CopperMines and Palestine Potash, and are seeking to buyinto the Israel Electric Company.

Thus does the Israeli ruling class continue tobarter away the country's economic wealth toforeign monopolies.

The economic burden of the government'sadventurist policies is being fastened in growingmeasure on the backs of the working people of Israel.Profits have risen sharply. In 1968 profits of indus-trial cencerns were 60 percent higher than in 1967.Profits of the leading banks in 1969 rose between 23and 48 percent over 1968. But workers have beenconfronted with rising taxes and prices, with redu-ced government subsidies for key food items, withcuts in social services, with a wage freeze and withcompulsory loans to the government.

As a result of these inroads into workers' livingstandards the number of strikes has been increasing,and this in the face of great pressure by the govern-ment and Histadrut and the labelling of strikers asbetrayers of Israel's security.

Demonstrations and strikes will undoubtedlymultiply as economic conditions continue to worsen.

There is no way out of this economic dead endexcept through abandonment of the policy of agres-sion and annexation and with it of growing depen-dence on foreign monopoly capital.

31

THE ISRAELI ARABS:

OPPRESSION INTENSIFIED

In the racist Zionist conception of the State ofIsrael, the Arabs are looked upon as intruders, asoutsiders in their own country, as non-people. Hencethey have been the object of the most blatantchauvinism and have been subjected to severe dis-crimination and oppression in every aspect of life.

The procedure of administrative arrest is basedon the emergency military regulations imposed bythe British in 1945 on both Jews and Arabs in Pales-tine. With the founding of Israel these regulationswere abolished for Jews but continued to be imposedby the Israeli government on Arabs. Among otherthings, they provide for the arrests of individualswithout formal charges and their imprisonment foran indefinite period without trial.

As late as October, 1969, there were still morethan a thousand Arabs detained under such arrest,I was told by Dr. Israel Shakhak, head of the IsraeliLeague for Human and Civil Rights.

Under the same military regulations hundredsof Arab leaders are restricted in their movements.They are confined to their districts or their cities,towns or villages, which they may not leave with-out a permit. Often they are required to remain intheir homes from dusk to dawn, and to report dailyto the police.

32

The requirement of permits is handled in themost arbitrary fashion.

A group of Arabs from Acre were given permitsto attend a conference of building trades workers inTel Aviv, an exception to the usual practice, butwere required to return to Acre every night — adistance of nearly 75 miles.

Only one third of the Arab workers are mem-bers of the Health Insurance Fund (Kupat Cholim)as against 72 percent of the Jewish workers. More-over, the Fund has few clinics in Arab villages, sothat the Arab members receive much poorer servicethan the Jewish.

^^L iff^ *-i H , ^^f^^^ ^^H

According to the official statistics, annualearnings of non-Jewish families in 1967 were lessthan 64 percent of those of Jewish families.

In institutions of higher learning Arabs are only1.5 percent of the student body, though they are 12percent of the population. In such fields as electro-nics or atomic energy they are excluded as ((securityrisks.» And those few who complete their studiesand obtain degrees are often unable to obtain workin their professions.

Arab farmers are discriminated against withregard to credits. Most Arab villages lack labourcouncils or labor exchanges through which unem-ployed workers can seek work under union condi-tions, while these Histadrut institutions are the rulein Jewish communities.

33

In addition the military regulations have bpenextensively used to confiscate the lands of Arabfarmers by closing them off on the grounds,«f«security.» These lands then find their way into thehands of the kibbutzim, while the Arab owners areconverted into ((Internal refugees.))

I visited a collection of galvanized iron shackson the outskirts of Nazareth. They were inhabitedby the former population of the nearby villageMa'lul. I learned also that nearly one-third of theArab residents of Nazareth are refugees from near-by villages.

The city of Nazareth is illustrative of the wholepattern of discrimination. Lower Nazareth, the oldcity dating back to Biblical times, has a populationof 30,000, all Arab. Upper Nazareth, located on thesurrounding hills, with 22,000 residents, consistsmostly of a new Jewish settlement.

Lower Nazareth has almost no industry andmany of its workers are forced to seek work in othercities. By contrast, the Jewish settlement boasts aDodge assembly plant/a large textile mill and anumber of other modern factories. In these factoriesfew Arabs are employed. • ' ' • •

Upper Nazareth also boasts a beautiful His-tadrut vacation resort — for Jews only.

The ultra-religious and right wing elementsopenly regard Arabs as people whose departurefrom Israel could only be welcomed, •

•35

Poem

ISA A. ALI

•

WOUNDED,PLEADING

I'm Palestine, wounded and pleading,Oh hear me, whip question todayWho's the Mother of Civilization?The world and her hist'ry, I sayThe Mother who gave us the Wise MenThree oldest and wisest of creedsBut now that I'm robbed and I'm woundedWhose mother will end the stampedes?Oh yes, I am robbed and I'm woundedMy people are being abusedTheir voices are crying in terror,They're dying, they're sick and confused.This Palestine, wounded, can tell youThat history itself will repeatLook! Those are my son's crucifiersWho hammered the nail to his feet.

I'm sickened to think what has happenedI'm angered to see what is doneThey're burning my people with napalmAt the site of the cross of my sonThey who carried the olive tree branchesFrom 2,000 years until nowThey who came to both me and my people

36

and shared of our precious endow.They picture us now as devilsThey call themselves angels, of courseBut I tell the world and my peopleThose «phonies» will suffer remorse.They label themselves as the «Masters»They slaughter, they shout and commandBut they are unwanted in EuropeThe «Masters» of my Holy LandI'll live because somehow by livingI'll topple their violent schemeThey'll bow to my peaceloving peopleThe ones they now scourge and blasphemeThey worked, yes, I saw them at laborFor 20 years, building with joyThen watched, what with napalm and weaponsIt took 5 short days to destroy.I raise my voice with my peopleI ask —• did you not hear our call?You knew we were wronged and woundedBut we heard no answer at allAs my son and cross live foreverWe shall not nor cannot succumbI've lived through the eons before you,I'll live through the ages to comeLet eyes see the plight of my peopleWhere greed has advanced to a flo9dWhere laughter and singing should flourishMy land is a swamp of their blood.They prayed for the rain from the heavensTo nourish the ground of their worth

gut dead bodies lying upon itShall never enrichen the earth.Oh hear me, the day is fast comingWhen they will fall down on their kneesThey'll beg for my people's forgivenessWhen they are no bigger than fleas.Remember, I'm Palestine ONLY,False titles I strongly revokeThey'll suffer for names they have called meBelieving • the words that they spoke.AS news of my son's crucifixionSpread quickly upon every tongueThe world will be hearing my peopleWhen one day their praises are sung.They're flesh, and they're blood, and they're humanWhy can't they be treated as such?Is wanting escape from their torturesConsidered a little too much?Is wanting a homeland and comfortAgainst all the rules of the law?It's time someone spoke for my people,And I think that someone is YOU!Let papers and magazines tell itLet TV's and radios blareSpeak truth on the fjood of my peopleFor once let them know that you care.I'm Palestine, wounded and pleadingI'm asking you give me but loveFor with it comes peace that we're seeking.That wonderful peace from above.

38 39

(short story)

TARIQ

by: A. Shneiwar

He was a young boy of fourteen. His father had beenkilled by the Zionists in a border clash between the resis-tance fighters and the Zionist invaders of their country.Since then Tariq had changed completely. He was no longerthe calm quiet boy. He began to neglect his studies and toreact violently even to everyday occurrences.

His mother became extremely worried abouthim, especially because he was her only child onwhom she had learned to depend after the death ofher husband.

One morning as she was arranging Tariq's bed,she found a pistol under his pillow, and she becameeven more worried than before. She called him toher and said: «You are my only child. I don't wantyou to have anything to do with guns and pistols. Iam deeply afraid lest I should lose you as I havelost your father.»

The child replied: «I have bought this pistol tolearn the art of fighting. I want to join the ranks ofthe resistance fighters to avenge the loss of my fatherand to liberate my country.» Meantime his faceturned pale with anger and exdftement and, pointingthe pistol to his head, he said with a voice reflecting

41

a sense of maturity and a determination much abovehis years: «Either you let me go with my comradesto participate in the military operations against ourenemy, or I'll shoot myself.»

Afraid lest Tariq, in a fit of rage, might carryout his foolish threat, she took him to the nearestcommandos training base, where the commander ofthe base did all he could to persuade the boy toforget about it all, to go back to school, and toresume his studies and a normal life until he wasolder. But the boy was adamant and would not leavethe base.

Impressed with the boy's determination, thecommander finally agreed to have him join the ranksof young trainees, The mother was sobbing andovercome with emotion. But the boy was overjoyedand he said to his mother as she left the base: «Donot grieve, mother; I will be a good and bravefighter and a credit to you and to my people.»

Tariq's mother left and, soon after, the trainingof her son began. He was clever and fearless; and ina short time he learned all the tricks of commandorighting: attack and defence, shooting, hurling bombsand planting mines. He also became an adept atboxing and wrestling. In six months time, he beganto participate in reconnaisance operations.

One evening in the barracks, the unit com-mander asked Tariq: «What would you do if youwere taken prisoner and tortured to divulge thesecrets of your unit?» Tariq blushed and his eyeskindled with fire. After a short time, he said: I

• -g

•

would see to it that I would die before I am takenprisoner.»

Another evening as the unit commander wasgiving instructions to the men who had been selec-ted to carry out a particularly dangerous operation,Tariq burst into the meeting and begged to be per-mitted to participate in the operation. At first thecommander hesitated but later acceded to therequest of the young fighter.

The operation was carried out as planned. Asthe men were going back to their base, they heardsome noise which gradually became louder. Theysoon discovered that a large number of enemy troopswere trying to close upon them and to cut their wayof retreat.

The unit commander suggested that the menshould move silently across a neighbouring hill whilecontinue to engage the enemy from a rocky stretchon top of the hill. In vain did he try to persuadeTariq to move with the men, but the lad insisted

43

that he would stay on to help cover the retreat Ofhis comrades.

Without asking the consent of the unit com.mander, who had no time to waste on trying todissuade the fiery lad from sharing in the self,sacrificing exploit, Tariq began shooting from diffe.rent points on top of the hill; and while he wasshooting fiercely, the enemy believed a large numberof commanjfe'llfhters wereJky||ly entB^rrctted on topof the hill. SSy|S.. :-;;~ jp ^j^ '\

The enemy forces dared not advance. The unitcommander feeling that his men had alreajay safetyand fearing lest he and Tariq should run short ofammunition, shouted to the young lad to follow himacross a secret rocky path that leads out of the rockyhill.

Tariq, however, would not follow. When theshooting stopped the enemy forces began to advanceto the top of the craggy hill. To their,surprise andamazement they found there a single fjtjiter insteadof a commando unit. Tariq faced thjg(|jpotionlessand defiant.

As the enemy soldiers were closjhe remembered what he,to the unit commander :~-4££&IlI be „ ^^^and a credit to my people... I would die before I amtaken.» Unexpectedly, he hurled a hand grenade ata rock right in front of him. He was torn into piecesand a number of enemy soldiers were killed.

Tariq was dead, but he had kept his pledge.J-Vr>' ™

44

m Tariq,said to his1 riither and

mill if ^ l iLi^A. I fm -m mre fighter

, I,

TAX-EXEMPTION S C A N D A L

On the 10th of last November (1971), the«Near East Reports of Washington reported thatU.S. Senator Stuart Symington had asked the U.S.Treasury to estimate the total loss of revenueresulting from the fact that gifts of the Zionist-sponsored United Jewish Appeal were tax deduc-tible, and that the answer was that the loss on thosegifts, totalling 1.55 billion dollars, was estimated at430 million dollars.

The scandal of the tax deducibility of the giftsof the Zionist-sponsored United Jewish Appeal wasfirst uncovered eighteen years ago. Early in 1954,Mr. Arthur Churchill, a retired advocate of PortlandCity, Oregon, asked the House Committee of theAmerican Senate to conduct an investigation regar-ding the huge sums of money which had beencollected over a number of years, and were still beingcollected, by Zionist American Jews and sent toIsrael.

In a report submitted by him to the said Com-mittee under the title «Foreign Charitable gifts»,Mr. Churchill pointed out that those sums, though

45

ostensibly collected for alleged charitable purposesand as such had been, and were being, exemptedfrom federal and state taxes were being used byIsrael for purposes which were, for the most partmilitary and in no way connected with charity.

Referring to the political and financial injusticeinvolved in the United States Government continu-ing its policy of considering Zionist donations toIsrael tax deductible, Mr. A. Churchill said:

((Zionist contributions to «Israel» have beenamazingly huge. What has not been realized is thatnearly all of this, as with all large funds, comesfrom big givers. I am reliably advised that 90 per-cent of the gifts to Jewish charitable funds comesfrom 19 or 20 percent of the givers. And under ourhigh tax rates and the charitable exemption rules,these «big givers» are allowed to deduct such giftsfrom their top brackets, in figuring their incometaxes.

«The result has been a very distorted situation.Such deductions do not come out of the atmosphere.The Government must go on. You must find the taxmoney to finance, for example, the staggering costsof defence. If one group of big givers send theirmoney abroad to a special community in which theyhave a special interest, and if they are allowed todeduct these sums from their taxable income, theload is merely shifted to other citizens, who maynot even inquire about what causes the shift.

((Moreover, a review of the subject of charitableexemptions may remove distortions which greatly

46

Careful! The man mighti. * , • , •have a tank in his pocket.

47

contribute to the present chaos in the Middle East.These distortions and the bitterness they produceamong the Arab inhabitants of the Middle East mayeasily plunge the world into the war which humanityeverywhere is seeking to avoid.»

Mr. A. Churchill then went on to point out thatthe tax deductibility of the Zionist sponsored UnitedJewish Appeal /gifts was not merely an unjustifiedextension of th^ iwhole concept of charitable exemp-tions, but also'fcojis1

jeopardized«If

unjustified^S^f ensidii^otable exenagtions. Nor

elati

loss of hundreds of millioimportantjJB^vthat the

on have expres-roadcast, Secre-

mace TO peace ande saijjl:

"This is not merely an.ejwhole concept of chari-~ ~ ' ~ t merely involve the

of dollars. Far more'putation of the Unitedi ( naf' •'

States 10?"impartiality is beings-jeopardized. BothSecretary Dulles and Adlai Stevesed their fear. In his June 1, 19tary Dulles said, among other

«The atomosphere is heavyJJUnited States should seek toment 'against it that result«Israel».. Today the Arab peUnited States will back the new State of Israel inaggressive expansion.))

More recently, the tax-exempt status of theZionist-sponsored United Jewish Appeal was analy-zed by an American authority on the subject.Replying to an inquiry by Mr. A.L. O'Connell, Chiefof the Technical Branches of Internal Revenue

48

Service in Washington, Mr. Norman F. Dacey, anauthority on American tax-exemption laws wrotethe following letter:

Dear Mr. O'Connell:

«On April 12, 1971, you wrote me regardingthe tax-exempt status of contributions to the UnitedJewish Appeal, noting that that organization hasqualified under Section 170 of the Internal RevenueCode which allows deductions when payments aremade «to or for the use of a corporation, trust, orcommunity chest, fund or foundation organized andoperated exclusively for religious, charitable, scien-tific, literary or educational purposes.

«A very substantial proportion of the contribu-tions to UJA are delivered up to the Jewish Agency,an instrumentality of the Israeli Government. Toall intents and purposes, 100% of the financing ofthe Jewish Agency comes from UJA. The JewishAgency is delegated by the Israeli Government withresponsibility for aliyah, the «ingathering» of worldJewry. The Israeli Government and the Agency seekto create the impression that this is an ingatheringof refugees, of persons who are suffering persecutionin various parts of the world. Actually, there arefew, if any, places in the world where Jews are nowbeing persecuted, This includes Russia, where the«persecution» consists in being denied the right toemigrate not only to Israel but to the United Statesand other Western countries. Actually, the samerestriction applies to all Russians, not simply to the

49

Jews, and therefore they are not being persecutedas Jews. The point is that the «ingathering» is nota humanitarian plan to save Jews from persecutionbut is simply a nationalistic scheme, political in itsconcept, to populate Israel and thereby promote itspower as a state. There is nothing «religiouscharitable, scientific, literary or educational)) aboutsuch an objective — and money contributed inAmerica to achieve such purposes should not be taxdeductible.))

Mr. Dacey then goes on to refer to the abusemade by the Israelis of the tax-deductibility of giftsto Israel. He explains that tax-deductible UnitedJewish Appeal funds are used to salvage mismana-ged Israeli corporations such as the Israeli develop-ment company called Rassco, which «earlier thisyear tottered on the verge of bankruptcy and wassaved only when the Jewish Agency stepped in andpaid 85 million dollars of the Company's liabilities.))Mr. Dacey adds that «Every penny of this moneyhad been received by the Jewish Agency from theAmerican United Jewish Appeal, and every dollarhad been received by the United Jewish Appeal asa tax-deductible contribution to charity.»

Mr. Dacey ends his letter by explaining thediscreditable role played by the Israelis in the recentdollar crisis, and calls on the United States authori-ties to put an end to the scandal of the tax exemp-tion of the Zionist-sponsored United Jewish Appeal.He writes:

«When the dollar was under intense pressureabroad a few months ago, and was being dumpedin favor of German marks, Bank Leumi of Israelmade a killing, trading millions of dollars for marks,not for customers accounts but for its own account.There we were, shipping our dollars to Israel, andIsrael was pulling the props out from under thedollar internationally — all in its own pursuit ofprofit. While the central banks of the rest of theworld were propping the dollar by buying in tosupport its price, our «friends» in Israel were pullingthe rug from under us and the dollars they wereselling represented the tax-free contributions ofAmerican Jewry.

«I suggest that it is time to end this ridiculousmisuse of our tax laws. We cannot regulate what theIsraeli Government and its instrumentality, theJewish Agency, do with the hundreds of millions ofdollars which the American Jewish community isbrainwashed into contributing on the grounds thatit is for a humanitarian end. We can, however,insure that the contribution is made by the Jewishcommunity alone and not by the American peoplegenerally in the form of lost tax revenue of phonycontributions to charity.s

If the Zionists treat their American sponsorsand allies in this manner, what can the Arabsexpect at their hands? •

51

Norman Dacey

•

I AM ASHAMED

OF MY COUNTRY' •

•A Letter to President

Nixon

I

• '

The following letter by a loyal American citizenand a former supporter of President Nixon was sentto the President on January 17, 1972. It stronglycondemns U.S. policy of blind support to Israel.

The letter is frank, logical and well-documented.It speaks for itself. No comment is needed to explainits vigorous and cogent arguments.

Dear Mr. President:

In my files is a letter from you thanking mefor my service, much of it full time, as chairman of

5253

the Volunteers for Nixon during your campaign forthe Presidency. Shortly after your renomination, Ishall be explaining to the newspapers why this timeI shall be campaigning actively for your defeat. Itseems only proper that I state to you the reasons formy defection.

I count myself a reasonably patriotic American.In World War II, I served overseas for three years—in my concluding assignment, directing psychologi-cal warfare operations on General Dwight D.Elsenhower's Supreme Headquarters staff in Euro-pe. But today I find myself ashamed of the positionof my country in the Middle East.

I have walked through Egyptian hospitals andseen row on row of beds of little children, theirbodies burned black by American-made napalmdropped from American-built planes in claimed«defense» of Israel. I have sat in shelters in a dozenrefugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank, in Jordanand in Lebanon, hearing at first-hand the accounts ofPalestinian Arabs who have been ruthlessly forcedfrom the land upon which they and their forefathershad lived for hundreds of years, driven into cruelexile by an alien army recruited in Europe andAmerica. That army, more powerful today than ever,and endowed with American material and financialsupport, has by pure aggression increased Israel'sland area 18-fold from the Peel Commission plan,4-fold in the 1967 Six Day War alone.

•

Im

'

•

I have talked with United Nations personnelwho have reported their proven findings that thebrutal physical torture of Arab prisoners in Israelrivals the worst that Hitler did in Nazi Germany.I have talked with personnel of the InternationalRed Cross in Geneva who confirm that they are notallowed to interview those who are thus being«detained and interrogated.)) I have, talked with aleading Israeli lawyer who charges that 80% of all

55

prisoners are tortured. I have talked with theforeign press corps in Israel who complain that theyhaven't been allowed inside an Israeli prison formore than two years, that every word they write issubject to the strictest censorship and nothing criti-cal is allowed to be sent out. I have talked withJewish members of the Israel League for Humanand Civil Rights and have seen their terrifyingstatistics of human torture, of mass demolition ofArab homes and wholesale deportation of the indi-genous population — all gross violations of the Thirdand Fourth Geneva Conventions. The knowledgethat my country's moral and material support ofthis politico/military monster is all that keeps itgoing is a matter of shame and embarrassment to

me, Mr. President.

When the Israeli press can boast as it has donethat Mrs. Meir can come to this country wheneverher government's excesses cause grumbling inWashington, and sweet talk you and your adminis-tration into granting her every wish, I am ashamedof my country, Mr. President. When I read in theLondon Times, in an article by a long-time U.S.Foreign Service officer, that appointments and pro-motions to Middle East desk posts in our StateDepartment must be approved by American Zionists,I am ashamed of my country, Mr. President.

When I read in the Jerusalem press a state-ment by a senior Israeli government official that

56

awe know that we can take care of the Arabs, butwe need to know whether the United States cantake care of the Russians,)) I am heartily ashamedof the part I played in helping to elect an Adminis-tration that deliberately allows this renegademember of the world community to lead us inexo-rably down the road to the ultimate disaster of anuclear confrontation with the Soviets.

When I read that you have pliantly acted inaccordance with Congressional «resolutions» callingupon you to give all-out support to Israel, howeverintransigent it may be and however defiant of U.N.decisions on Jerusalem, and then I observe in theCongressional Quarterly the fees which the sponsorsof the resolutions have received from Zionist sourcesfor their infamous services, I weep for my countryand its future. Washington columnist Joseph Alsopreports that with one exception, «every liberalsenator receives more than half of his campaigncontributions from Zionist sources.)) In the ForrestalDiaries, the former Secretary of Defense expressedhis concern that «one group in this country shouldbe permitted to influence our policy to the pointwhere it could endanger our national security. It isa disastrous and regrettable fact that the foreignpolicy of this country is determined by contributionsa particular block of special interests make to theParty funds.» NEWSWEEK a few weeks ago repor-ted that «100 of the nation's most influential Jewishleaders have announced plans to convene in

57

Washington next week to push for a resumption ofweapons' sales to Jerusalem. In talks with topRepublicans, the Jewish leaders are expected tounderscore the importance of Jewish support forMr. Nixon's re-election next year.» It is a sadmeasure of the degree of our fall from grace thatour foreign policy can now be bought for a fewshekels.

Your «even-handedness» toward the Arabs mayprovoke smiles at the United' Nations, but to theArab Middle East it is far from a joke. I predict thatan oil-short United States will one day pay a hugeprice for the fantastically-inept foreign policy withwhich your Administration has indulged itself inthat area of the world. Virtually every Americanambassador stationed in the Middle East since 1943warned explicitly against backing Zionism becauseit was the Achilles heel through which the Sovietswould advance their interests in the area. You woulddo well to recall John F. Kennedy's admonition that«American partisanship in the Arab-Israeli conflictis dangerous both to the United States and the freeworld.» Contrast your position with that of DwightEisenhower who, in 1956, unhesitatingly put prin-

ciple above politics and ordered not only Israel buta powerful Britain and France to surrender whatthey had seized in the Middle East. I respectfullyremind you that he left office honored by the entireworld. How would he judge your policy today?

Equally lamentable is your persistent refusalto acknowledge the existence of the PalestinianArabs and to give your support to their efforts tobring some kind of order out of the chaos. Ignoringthe obvious fact that the Suez Canal, Sharm el-Shaik,Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are simplyperipheral problems which will never be solveduntil the basic problem of Palestinian nationalismis solved, you and your Administration have fourtimes rejected overtures made on behalf of arepresentative group of responsible Palestinians.

Over the past year, I have had occasion fre-quently to applaud and support your domesticeconomic policies in my radio and television com-mentaries. In that area you have done an excellentjob. Why, then, am I not going to support you inthe coming campaign? Because I am convinced thatif you continue your present foreign policy of blindsupport for Israel which in the U.N. has isolated usfrom the rest of the world community, there won'tbe any United States, economically sound or other-wise. With consummate skill and cunning, the Israeligovernment which we have imposed upon the peo-ples of the Middle East is turning its conflict withthe Arabs into a confrontation between our countryand Russia. If they cannot have their own way, theyare quite prepared to spark an Armageddon whichwill destroy us all.

Perhaps future scholars researching your official

59

papers will discover the reasons which have im-pelled you to adopt policies so contrary to ourcountry's best interests in the Middle East. Certainlythose reasons are not now apparent. When theAmerican dollar was in its deepest trouble abroad,Bank Leumi of Israel made a financial killing tra-ding millions of U.S. dollars for German marks forits own account. On what grounds does yourAdministration justify handing them hundreds ofmillions of additional dollar credits? The over-enthusiastic receptions given Prime Minister Meirby your Administration stand in marked contrast tothe reception given American citizens in Israel —the American consul in Jerusalem has confirmed tome that in a recent single week the consulatereceived more than fifty complaints from Americancitizens who had been beaten up and/or imprisonedwithout charges by the Israeli police.

Why are we giving Israel such blind support?To save the Middle East from Communism? But itis Israel which has brought a Communist presenceinto the area. Because it is our policy to supportdemocratic regimes? What is democratic about aregime which is bound by its «fundamental» lawsto discriminate against people, not because they areChristians or Muslims, but simply because they arenot Jews? What is democratic about a country witha parliament not one member of which has beenelected by the people but whose members areinstead appointed to their posts by political party

60

bosses? What is democratic about a regime in whichthe Sephardic Jews who constitute 60% of the totalpopulation are «represented» by only 15% of theparliamentary seats? What is democratic about asystem which uses our dollar credits and tax-deductible United Jewish Appeal funds to supporta growing body of «fat cats» living a life of luxurywhile thousands of their Sephardic Jewish andArabic fellow citizens exist in unspeakable slumconditions?

In the refugee camps, two million displacedPalestinians who believed Wilson's Fourteen Points,who believed the Covenant of the League of Nations,who believed the Charter of the United Nations —all of which guaranteed them their freedom andindependence — wait and hope pathetically forjustice from what was once the greatest nation onearth, apparently unaware that that nation has be-come a dancing bear, responding dumbly to the com-mands given it directly by the government of Israeland indirectly through a potent Fifth Column whichoperates here in America and which gives blindobedience to the Zionist credo that all Jews every-where owe national loyalty to Israel, a loyalty whichis enjoined upon «the Jewish people» everywhere bythe so-called «Status Law» enacted by the Knessetin 1952. What is our world image in the light of therecent Zionist announcement that in the year 1971,more than 10,000 American Jews «fled» to Israel toescape persecution, their passage paid by the Jewish

61

Agency from tax-deductible American «charitable»contributions to the United Jewish Appeal?

In summary, Mr. President, I find your Middle

East policy intolerable. That is why I shall workvigorously for your defeat, giving the widest possibledissemination to my reasons. The defection may beof small consequence, of course. On the other handwhen I was asked to serve in your campaign, some-one must have assumed that I was capable of in-fluencing others. I shall try my best to do thathoping that thereby I may help my. country regainsome measure of its self respect.

Respectfully yours,Norman F. Dacey

.

•

'

62

ALESTINE QUESTIONIN

WORLD PRESS

Our «world press* extracts for this month include twoitems: (1) a letter by Professor Alan R. Taylor of theAmerican University, Washington, defending the views ofJohn P. Kichardson on the oppressive and colonial natureof the Israeli occupation of the Arab territories seized in1967. The letter which was published in the WashingtonPost on February 17, 1972 is also concerned with upholdingthe right of American citizens to challenge Israeli viewsand policies without being exposed to the Zionist black-mailing threat of being branded as anti-Semites. (2) a com-ment published in the March-1972 issue of the Moscow NewTimes magazine, pointing out the intense escalation of thecurrent Middle East crisis produced by the large-scaleIsraeli aggressions, committed against south Lebanon inthe last week of February.

; f t ; ;.';r: IT . . •• •

V i . . .DISSENT ON ISRAEL(The Washington Post, Feb. 17, 1972)

The content of Zionist reply to any criticism

63

of Israeli policy has reached the saturation level ofcredibility in a world which has wearied of polemicsand the arguments of bias. An editorial in theChristian Century a few years ago put it succinctly-«It simply will not do any longer for some Jews todemand dialogue... while making authentic dialogueimpossible by tarring honest dissent as anti-Semitic...*

The case in point here is the response to JohnRichardson's letter (Jan. 28) on the Israeli occupa-tion, of the West Bank and Gaza. The RichardsonReport represents the considered opinion of a res-ponsible expert on refugee affairs, following a recenttrip to the iMiddle East. The substance of his findingswas that the occupation involves above all a politicalproblem in which the rights of the occupied peopleshave been subordinated to the gambits of Israelidiplomacy. Beneath the strategy, he feels, is an Is-raeli disregard for the prerogatives and even thevery existence of the Palestinians as a people. Prof.Jacob Talmon of the Hebrew University recognizedthis three years ago in an open letter which warned:«In the eyes of the world, and in my eyes, too, therecognition or lack of recognition of the PalestinianArabs as a community with the right of self-determination is the cardinal question at issue. It isthe acid test that will determine whether we arebent on settlement and reconciliation or on expan-sion—on respect for the rights of others or onignoring them.» Yet the «non-being» of the Pales-tinians has remained an official policy endorsed by

Ithe prime minister, while the occupation iitselfliasbecome a shield which the character of Jerusalemand the West Bank is being subtly but persistentlytransformed, against the wishes of the world-. :.;:c;v;q

Though a number of observers, including - theforeign editor of the 'London Times, have substan-tiated this view, the responses to the Richardsonreport by Irving Herman (Febl 4) and Rabbi MarvinBash (Feb. 8) fall back on the attempt to discreditthe author as an «Arab propagandist)) and to justifythe occupation and its methods as matters of Israeliself-defense. It is also suggested that Mr. Richardsonrejects Israel's right to exist, which is not evidentfrom the text, and that in any event the PalestiniansUnder occupation are better off than theyrwerebefore. '•-<• •^•'••.'•-•^ ,..-.. . - • . . . • . . . . . • • . • . . . , , . . _ - \,-!r.-;

•On closer examination, it appears that: :theoccupation was' the result of an Israeli military in-vasion under conditions of widely recognizedsuperiority and -that the system of subordinationwhich 'has been imposed represents an instance, ofcolonial rule. The question of rights is always em-barrassing to Zionism in historical perspective,T sinceits announced aim at an early stage was to makethe predominantly Arab-inhabited Palestine «asJewish as England^ is English.* Similarly, the con-jectural matter of welfare is really secondary.!1 to thepolitical issue of tenure and self-determination.What it all comes down to is that what Israel ex-pects the conquered Palestinians to accept would ina reversed situation be totally unacceptable to Israel

65

itself. It is not surprising, therefore, that the singlestandard which the United Nations and professionalobservers such as John Richardson seek to apply jsprecisely what Israelis and Zionists find most diffi.cult to accept. Yet the fact remains that it is im-possible to speak meaningfully about rights orjustice if separate codes are applied to the adver-saries in a common dispute.ISRAEL WHIPS UP TENSION(New Times - March 1972)

The situation in the Middle East has againdeteriorated through the fault of Israel, showingonce more that the smouldering embers there areapt to flare up anew at any moment.

Early in the morning of February 25 Israeliunits crossed the Lebanese frontier and seizedseveral villages on the slopes of Mount Hermon(Jebel esh Sheikh). This was by far not the firstprovocation of this kind against the Lebanon inrecent years but it was definitely the biggest instrength and duration. The invader remained inoccupation of the large Al Arkub area for four daysand Israeli planes shelled and bombed nearby loca-lities and roads. One of the bombs destroyed a schooland another hit a kindergarten. Lebanese news-papers report that six children were killed and tenwounded.

Later, planes with the Israeli insignia raidedthe outskirts of the Syrian town of Deraa. On March1 the Syrian Air Force retaliated with an attack onIsraeli settlements on the occupied Golan Heights.

66

Israel's new armed provocations have had wide

repercussions throughout the world. At its meetingon the night of February 28 the Security Councilunanimously demanded that Israel immediately haltits air and land operations against the Lebanon andwithdraw all its military forces from that country.Yielding to strong international pressure, the Israeliforces withdrew from Lebanese territory by theevening of the following day, leaving behind blown-up houses, burnt-out barns, destroyed communica-tion lines, and dozens of killed and wounded.

But the clashes did not end with that. Israeliplanes continued to fly over south Lebanon in thedays that followed and Israeli artillery bombardedPalestinian refugee camps in the southern areas ofthe Lebanon and Syria. On March 2 several Israeliaircraft appeared near the Syrian port of Lattakiabut were driven off by the air defences.

According to the official Tel Aviv version, theinvasion of the Lebanon and the air raids on Syriawere undertaken to wipe out Palestinian guerillabases. But the duration and the scope of the opera-tions suggest that the Israelis pursued more far-reaching aims. The Paris La Nation, for instance,wonders whether the guerillas' activities in theLebanon were not seized upon as a pretext for pre-parations for the permanent occupation of part ofsouthern Lebanon. There appear to be some goodgrounds for this assumption, particularly since thechampions of Greater Israel make no secret of then"plans for the annexation, along with other Arab

68

territories, of southern Lebanon all the way to theLitani River.

Previously, when the Israelis staged air andland attacks on these areas, Lebanese army units didnot usually come into direct contact with the ag-gressor, confining their activity to retaliatory ar-tillery and anti-aircraft fire from remote positions.This time, however, the situation was so serious thatthe Lebanese army joined in the fighting and advan-ced towards the frontier, occupying the territoryfrom which the Israelis retreated.

Commenting on these latest Israeli provocations,Arab newspapers write that the operations wereco-ordinated with the Middle East plans of the im-perialist powers, notably the United States. Withoutcontinued American military, economic and politicalaid, they say, Israel would never have dared to stageone armed provocation after another against Arabcountries and ignore the U.N. Security Councilresolution of November 22, 1967. «The responsibilityfor the fact that the Middle East crisis has not yetbeen peacefully resolved lies wholly with the UnitedStates,» President Anwar Sadat of Egypt declaredwhen Israel invaded the Lebanon.

The provocations against the Lebanon andSyria have definitely aggravated the situation in theMiddle East and further complicated the settlement°f the protracted Arab-Israeli confict. - •

by: Dr. George Haggar

•

REVIEWS. r • •

, ' . .

. : • ':.

it

THE UNHOLY LAND by A. C. Forrest. McClellandand Stewart Ltd., Toronto 173 pages, $6.95

•

A. G. Forrest's «The Unholy Land» was one of themost important books published on the Palestine questionin 1971. In view of the position of the author, the distin-guished editor of Canada's United Church Herald, andbecause the book presents an image of the Arab-Israeliconflict which is not identical with pro-Israeli reporting,the Zionists vigorously opposed it when it was first publi-shed and, for some time, succeeded in removing it frommajor distribution centres in Canada and the UnitedStates. Since then, it has established itself and gone intoa second printing.

The book is reviewed by Dr. George Haggar, whoteaches at the Department of Integral Studies, Universityof Waterloo, Canada.

70

'

•

The Middle East cauldron has been interpretedin a multitude of ways by partisans of either Zionismor Arabism. Zionism on the American continent hasprevailed as a «given» because effective Zionists aremostly Westerners well-integrated into the patternsof North American life, thought, and modes of ac-tion. Other contributing factors to Zionist supremacyon the American scene range from Western guilt

;• • '.I';

: ''

.

•:

'' '

'

'

71

feelings generated by the Nazi holocaust the Jewsto feelings of admiration for Israel's military vic-tories.

With the publication of The Unholy War byProfessor David Waines of McGill University,Zionist supremacy is challenged for the first time inCanadian academic history. Waines' account is botha judicious and a scholarly exegesis that exemptsneither Arab nor Jew from criticism. Zionists willdoubtless label it a sophisticated apology for theArabs. But Zionists are losing their grip on absolutecertainty and righteousness as a consequence ofIsrael's arrogant power displays, expansionism andutter disregard for public opinion.

Unlike most authors, Waines does not dwell onAmerica's support of Israel or the United States rolein the creation and maintenance of Israel. However,as an historian, he seems reluctant to pontificateregarding the prospects of the Palestine resistancemovement and its transformation into an Arabrevolutionary vanguard. As a matter of fact, heallocates very little space to such a momentous andunanticipated movement.

The central thesis of Professor Waines' book isthat a people without a land—the Jews—sought toestablish a state in a land with a people in Palestine.By beginning with such a stance, Waines immedia-tely shatters one of the most hallowed myths ofZionism: «Give us, a people without a land, a landwithout a people.» Although he concedes that Arab

72

Jews have always lived in Palestine, he categoricallydenies that Palestine was «desolate and uninhabited))and provides ample evidence to confute Zionistassertions that they made the desert bloom andcarved a state out of the wilderness in «their ancient.homeland.)) The crucial point, however, is not whatmyths Arabs or Zionists propagate, but what thetruth is; the incontrovertible truth, according toWaines, is that the conquest of Palestine by Zionismand the exclusion of the Palestinians from theirhomeland is the story of continuous denial by thePalestinians' friend and foe:

Great Britain denied independence to Palestinealone among the mandated territories in the post

' • World War I period. Zionists denied the existence ofa people and society in Palestine as they strove totransform it into a European Jewish enclave (p. 198.)If we were to acknowledge the story of denial

as substantially true and proceed to ask Waines,what we should do in order to rectify such a trans-parent inhumanity on the part of all of us towardsthe Palestinians, he would have no specific answerother than: recognize the Palestinians as a peoplewho have a right to their homeland, stop treatingthem as refugees, ask Golda Meir to admit theyexist. As Professor Waines is a scholar, not a propa-gandist, he insists that «to understand the problem,we must revert to its basic roots» and by so doing,he informs us that:

In the Zionist field of vision the Arab never

73

Tof the World Zionist Organization and the JewishAgency, Waines sums up his evaluation thus:

Under the Mandate for Palestine, the JewishAgency had never at any time formulated a positivepolicy of cooperation with the Arab population.Indeed, implicit in Zionist ideology and explicit inpractice, the Arabs were excluded from considera-tion in the functions of the Jewish National Home,Separate development of the Arab, and Jewish com-munities was the rule. Any other arrangementwould, in the Zionist view, impair the specificallyJewish character or personality of the NationalHome (page 131).

As Waines debunks Zionism and exposes its«humanitarian» pronouncements and explodes Israel'sdemocratic pretensions, he indicts the Arab leader-ship for its failure to alleviate the lot of the peasantry,for its concern with status and privilege and for itsunwillingness «to co-opt the full support of the

masses.» Waines declares that

The effendis could not think in terms of beingobligated to the lower classes in the context of atotal national struggle. They could only feel someobligation for the lower classes insofar as this didnot conflict with their own vital interests (p. 90).

Since the Jews were a minority in Palestinewho desired to establish a state as Jewish as Britainwas British, the expulsion of the Palestinians was'from the outset a correct logical deduction, an im-

76

plicit assumption, a practical policy. Therefore,

(immediately before and after the creation of Israel,the Zionists engaged in a ((psychological blitz» thatforced nearly 700,000 Palestinians to abandon theirhomes only to be supplanted by a comparable num-ber of Jews in less than four years. The «refugees»did not after two decades of pestilential livingpenetrate the complacent conscience of the world asa people entitled to return home. The Zionists con-vinced the world that the Palestinians left «volun-tarily» and that it would be best for them anywayto be assimilated by their own Arab people ratherthan be repatriated to Palestine, where they wouldconstitute a subversive ((fifth columns. As to theArabs who remained behind, they lived under Israelidefense laws in cloistered environments where pro-perty, person, civil rights, and national aspirationswere subject to the will of military commanders inthe ruling Mapai Party, an organization that didnot have a single Arab member, but provided anArab ((political list» for the voters to «choose»from.

The upshot of the whole argument is that theIsraelis, by their own grave deeds created their owngrave-diggers. Meanwhile, the Palestinians havedecided to start writing their own script and havecommenced their own revolution—a drama whoseunfolding will have repercussions throughout theworld. •

77

. . .•

;

0 UsistanceOpera t ions

* ,;

;• :

(March 1972)

On March 1, 1972, a Zionist military spokesmanadmitted that several Katyusha rockets were firedby Palestinian commandos at Kiryat Shemonahsettlement. The rockets which exploded in severalplaces splintered the glass in the windows of anumber of houses. The spokesman alleged that nocasualties were sustained.

On the same day, Palestinian commandosambushed an Israeli military patrol on the mainroad north-east of Dabousiya village in the occupiedSyrian Golan Heights. The commandos used rocketsand automatic weapons against the Israeli patrol,killing or wounding several enemy soldiers.

On March 2, a mine exploded under a buscarrying workers to an arms factory located in a

78

forest east of Acre. The explosion destroyed the busand killed or wounded more than twenty passengers.

On the same day, a number of shells were firedat an Israeli military post in the Kuneitra area. TheIsraelis admitted the attack and said that Israeliforces exchanged shellfire with the Palestinianfreedom fighters, but alleged that no casualties ordamage had been reported.

On March 3, a Palestinian commando unitshelled the Israeli Fardawi camp and armoredvehicles near Jibbein in the occupied Syrian GolanHeights. The attack was carried out with heavyrockets, setting fire to the camp.

On the same day, Palestinian freedom fighterslaunched a surprise attack on the enemy militarycommand headquarters and on camps in the occupiedGolan Heights near Kuneitra, using heavy rocketsand machine guns. They scored direct hits inflictingheavy losses on enemy installations and causingmany casualties among enemy personnel. Enemypositions were set on fire, and rescue squads andfire-brigades were rushed to the scene to extinguish.the fire and evacuate casualties.

On March 5, explosive charges planted byPalestinian commandos at an enemy sweets factoryat the Yan Street in the heart of Tel Aviv, went off,

79

setting the building on fire and'destroying all thecontents of the factory.

On March 6, a land-mine planted by Palestiniancommandos exploded under an enemy militarypower-wagon, carrying enemy soldiers from Sinai toRafah. The vehicle was destroyed and its occupantswere killed and wounded.

On the same day, Palestinian commandosrocketed the Ain Wawiyat camp in the occupiedSyrian Heights, inflicting heavy losses on enemyinstallations. The enemy sustained many casualties.

On March 7, explosive charges planted byPalestinian commandos at the Police InvestigationDepartment in building No." 16 in Tel Aviv, exploded,causing great damage to the building. Several Israeliintelligence personnel were injured or wounded.

On the same day, an enemy intelligence officer,called David, was killed, when his car was ambushedby a commando unit near the Jebaliyah camp in the

Gaza Strip.

On March 8, Palestinian commando patrolsclashed with an enemy military patrol at the out-skirts of Ain Yaheef settlement in the Negev. Theenemy patrol sustained a number of casualties. Ourmen used hand grenades and machine-guns in the

attack.

On March 12, a Palestinian commando unitplaced explosive charges at the Hofesh Mar Res-taurant on the shore Lake Tiberias frequented byenemy soldiers. The charges exploded, destroyingthe restaurant and setting it on fire. Several Israelisoldiers were killed or wounded.

On March 13, explosive charges and incendiarybombs planted by a Palestinian commando unit,went off under an enemy military land rover carry-ing enemy soldiers to the south of Deir El-Balah. Thevehicle was destroyed and its occupants were killedor wounded.

On March 14, traffic on the Israeli railway-lines in the Gaza Strip was interrupted as a resultof Palestinian commando attacks. The destructionof the railway line near Jerusalem resulted inderailing a railway coach.

On March 15, two Israeli soldiers were killedand five wounded when a landmine, planted byPalestinian commandos blasted their car on a dirttrack, 19 Kilometers from the Lebanese frontier. AnIsraeli lieutenant and a corporal were killed. Theexplosion took place deep in Israeli held territorynear the town of Karmiel.

On March 19, a commando unit attacked anenemy ambush near Kuneitra, using rockets andmortars, scoring direct hits on enemy targets. A

81

80

number of Israelis were killed or wounded. Theattack was launched after a gap had been opened inthe enemy electronic fortifications erected by theZionists near Kuneitra.

On March 22, a special commando unit placedhighly explosive and incendiary charges at a clothesstore in Dizenkov Street in Tel Aviv. The chargesexploded, setting several neighbouring buildings onfire. Enemy losses were estimated at thousands ofIsraeli pounds. The enemy admitted that the storehad been completely destroyed and that the fires hadspread to a neighbouring commercial shop. SeveralIsraelis were injured.

On March 24, a Palestinian commando unit laidan ambush to an enemy military patrol on a dirttrack east of Dabousiya camp in the occupied SyrianHeights. An enemy half-tracked vehicle was dama-ged with machine gun fire and rockets and its fouroccupants were killed or wounded.

Also on March 24, a special commando unitattacked a concentration of enemy military vehiclesnorth of Kafr-El-Ma in the Syrian occupied GolanHeights, using machine-guns and heavy rockets. Theattack resulted in damaging a number of enemyarmored vehicles and in killing, or wounding, anumber of enemy soldiers.

On March 25, Palestinian commandos attacked

82

Tal Abu Dahab camp in the occupied Syrian Heights,using rockets and other weapons, The rockets scoreddirect hits on enemy barracks and concentration ofvehicles. The attack resulted in killing or woundinga number of enemy soldiers.

On March 26, Palestinian freedom fighterslaunched an attack against an enemy patrol nearBeit Lahya in the northern part of the Gaza Strip,using machine-guns and hand grenades in theensuing battle which lasted for two hours. Severalenemy soldiers were killed or wounded. •

.

83

.. . ,

P. L. O. Political Program

. :. .

The Palestine National Congress, which washeld in Cairo in the first two weeks of April 1972and which was attended by 500 Palestinian delegates,approved on April 10 the following political pro-gram for the Palestine Liberation Organization(P.L.O.):

The Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O-)will concentrate its struggle on four main objec-

tives:

1. Continuing the mobilization and organiza-tion of all the potentials of the Palestine people,inside and outside the homeland.

2. Cementing the struggle of the Palestine

84

people with that of the people in Jordan in theform of a joint Palestinian-Jordanian Front, whichwill work for the liberation of Palestine and alsothe liberation of Jordan from the Royalist regimeand the establishment of a democratic national rulethere.

3. Cementing the ties that bind the Palestinianand Jordanian struggle with that of all the Arabnation through the establishment of a united frontof all progressive and nationalist forces opposed toimperialism, Zionism, and the new imperialism (inJordan).

4. Coordinating work with the world struggleagainst imperialism and Zionism with the ultimateobjective of attaining national liberation.

On the Palestinian front, the P.L.O. has thefollowing strategy as its objective:

1. Continuing the struggle for the liberationof all the Palestinian homeland and the establish-ment of a Palestinian democratic rule, where workand a decent living will be available to all citizens.Guarantees to the interests of all those who partici-pated in the revolution or supported it will be given.Even those who were sympathetic to the Palestinecause and who refrained from cooperating with the

85

enemy or making its objectives easier will getsimilar guarantees. Freedom of expression, meeting,demonstrating, striking will also be guaranteed, inaddition to the establishment of national politicalorganizations. The state will also guarantee freedom

of belief to all citizens.

2. Continuing the struggle AGAINST all plansfor solving the Palestine problem through theestablishment of fake entities or a Palestine state

on any part of Palestine.

3. Consolidating national unity with the mas-ses in the areas occupied by the enemy in 1948, thepeople in the West Bank of Jordan, in the GazaStrip and in lands outside Palestine.

4. Resisting the policy aimed at deportingArabs from the occupied territories, the establish-ment of Jewish settlements and the measures aimedat Judaizing part of the Palestine homeland.

5. Mobilizing and arming the masses in theWest Bank and the Gaza Strip to enable them to

resist the occupying authorities.

6. Organizing the masses in the form of unionsand syndicates to enable them to protect their dailyinterests and to resist attempts by the Histadrut toattract the Arabs in Israel to join the organization.

86

7. Supporting Palestinian laborers working inArab establishments and providing them withguarantees that will make them turn down offersfor work by the enemy.

8. Supporting the farmers in the occupiedterritories by providing them with the facilities thatwould deter them from moving away from theland.

9. Taking care of the interests of the Pales-tinians in all the Arab homeland by providing themwith all the economic and legal rights enjoyed by

-the citizens of the countries in which they areliving.

10. Putting the Palestinian woman on an equalfooting with the man at all levels.

11. Improving the status of the Palestiniansin the camps through the establishment of popularcommittees under the auspices of the P.L.O. to takecare of the affairs of the camps.

12. Considering any person who cooperateswith the enemy as an enemy of the Palestinerevolution.

13. Taking care of the interests of Palestinianswho emigrated to foreign countries.

14. The Palestine Liberation Organization will

87

be formed of all resistance groups - political andmilitary-and of all Palestinian popular organizations-Unions or educational associations. Membership Ofthe P.L.O. will be open to all national groups and

personalities.

15. The activities of the P.L.O. will be handledby a provisional political and military leadershipthat will be formed after consultation with all thegroups that make up the Organization. This pro-visional leadership will prepare for a General Con-gress of the Organization, which participated inelecting the Central Committee of the P.L.O. andwill implement the organization's strategy for

liberation.

16. The provisional leadership will merge allcadres that at present make up the Organization.

17. The P.L.O. will exercize its official roleby taking charge of the affairs of the Palestinians inthe Arab world. The P.L.O. will continue to repre-sent the political aims and objectives of the Palestinepeople; it will continue to be the highest politicalleadership for the Palestine people and it will bethe sole organization speaking for the Palestinians

in all matters affecting their destiny. •

D O C U M E N T SREPORT OF THE UNSPECIAL COMMITTEE _FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On October 5, 1971, the three-member UN«Special Committee to Investigate Israeli PracticesAffecting the Human Rights of the Population of theOccupied Territories* submitted to the UN Secre-tary-General its second report. The Report condemnsIsrael for serious violations of the rights of theinhabitants of the Occupied Arab territories andmakes recommendations to deal with these viola-tions.

Last month we gave the full text of the Findingsof the Report. Below is the full text of the Recom-

. mendations.H

RecommendationsI of the Special Committee to Investigate Practices

Affecting the Human Rights of the OccupiedTerritories.

89

84. The Special Committee, having examinedthe evidence before it, reiterates the recommenda-tions that it made in its first report (A/8089, paras.145-156) with the modifications indicated below.

85. The Special Committee notes that thedeclared Israeli policy of annexing Jerusalem hasbecome even more manifest in the construction oflarge housing projects on the occupied easternlimits of the city undertaken as an apparent instru-ment of that policy. The Special Committee recom-mends that the General Assembly call upon theGovernment of Israel to desist from all measures forthe annexation of the occupied part of Jerusalem.

86. The Special Committee also notes thatsince the presentation of its first report certainpolicies and practices which the Special Committeefound to exist in the occupied territories have beencontinued, in some instances on an even wider scale.This is especially so in regard to the policy ofencouraging the movement of Israeli settlers intosuch settlements. The Special Committee recom-mends that the Government of Israel be called upon

to discontinue this policy.

87. The Special Committee must also drawattention to the fact that the practice of deportationof civilians from the occupied territories has con-tinued unabated, and must record its grave concernthat this practice, together with the policy of

90

establishing settlements in the occupied territories,seems calculated to eliminate an identifiable Pales-tinian community altogether from the occupiedterritories. The Special Committee, therefore, re-commends that the General Assembly at the sametime call upon the Government of Israel to permit,unconditionally, all persons who have fled the occu-pied territories, or who have been deported orexpelled therefrom, to return to their homes.

88. The Special Committee still maintainsthat the existing arrangements for the enforcementof the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are, inthe circumstances, inadequate as they neither enablecomplete and exhaustive investigation of allegationsof violations of these Conventions nor do they in apositive sense ensure their scrupulous observance.Such an investigation can be effective only if theparties concerned extend their willing co-operation.

89. The evidence before the Special Committeeshows that the practices and policies found to existin the occupied territories in 1970 have not ceased,and for this reason the Special Committee wouldreiterate the recommendation contained in para-graph 155 of its first report (A/8089) regarding theestablishment of a mechanism to ensure the safe-guarding of the human rights of the population ofthe occupied territories. In renewing this recommen-dation the Special Committee must emphasize that

:t attaches the highest importance to the proper

tl

91

representation of the interests of the Palestinianpopulation, which has not yet been given the rightof self-determination. The Special Committee wishesto emphasize the need for effective implementationof the Geneva Conventions; and that humanitarianconsiderations should transcend all political diffe-rences and difficulties. Humanitarian considerationsand the importance of protecting rights accordedunder international law can and should be keptseparate and distinct from the political issues. TheSpecial Committee is satisfied that the arrangementit proposes does not and cannot prejudice any finalsettlement of the political problem involved inaccordance with the terms of Security Councilresolution 242 (1967).

90. The Special Committee, therefore commendsto the States parties to the conflict in the MiddleEast the adoption of the arrangement proposed byit in its first report. The merit of that proposal isthat it conforms to the spirit of the Third and FourthGeneva Conventions while avoiding certain politicalproblems inherent in the present situation. For suchan arrangement to be effective, three elements are

essential:

(a) There must be supervision of the conditions of

occupation;

(b) This supervision must be exercised by anindependent and impartial body;

92

(c) The investigating body must enjoy freedom ofoperation in the spirit of the Geneva Conven-tions.

91. The arrangement proposed by the SpecialCommittee in its first report (A/8089) and recom-mended by it again is as follows: The GeneralAssembly might recommend:

(a) That the States whose territory is occupied byIsrael appoint immediately either a neutralState or States, or an international organization

t which offers all guarantees of impartiality andeffectiveness, to safeguard the human rights ofthe occupied territories;

(b) That suitable arrangements be made for theproper representation of the interests of thelarge population in the occupied territorieswhich has not been given the opportunity ofexercising the right of self-determination; and

(c) That a neutral State or international organiza-tion, as described in (a) above, be nominatedby Israel and be associated in this arrangement.The Special Committee recommends that theState or States or international organizationduly nominated under this arrangement mightbe authorized to undertake the followingactivities:

93

(a) To secure the scrupulous implementation of theprovisions relating to human rights containedin the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventionsand in particular to investigate and determinethe facts in the case of allegations of the viola-tion of the human rights provisions of theseConventions or of other applicable internationalinstruments;

(b) To ensure that the population of the occupiedterritories is treated in accordance with theapplicable law;

(c) To report to the States concerned, and to theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations onits work. •

RESISTANCESUBSCRIPTION COUPON

Enclosed please find cheque for

covering a year's subscription

to RESISTANCE (12 issues)

Name

Address ,

City Country

Mail to :RESISTANCE (P.L.A.)P. O. Box 3577

Please send cheques through Syrian Commercial

Bank, Branch 3 (Account No. 18268).

Damascus —Syria

Rates -S 7.00. £ 3.00, L.S. 25.00

ISSUED BY : Directorate of Moral Guidance,Palestine Liberation Army,Damascus ( Syria ).